Talk:Genocide

Genocide can refer to the killing of cultural, political, or religious groups too. Thanks. [1] --WOVcenter 01:09, 9 March 2007 (EST)

I thought that that was referred to as ethnocide. Still, it usually ends up the same, though. Wikinterpreter

Deleted phrase

but has yet to take any concrete steps to resolve.

What is is this supposed to mean, is the US govt supposed to bring vicitms back from the grave in order to "resolve" a genocide? RobS 20:39, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Word of caution

I would caution against over reliance upon citations to the United Nations as being some sort of authoritve or definitive source on this subject; this may have the unintended consequence of nobody taking an issue of such vital importance as serious at all. RobS 14:02, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Definitions and editorialisation

1. It was not an attempt to define genocide, it was one of mant possible definitions of the term. For others, see Chalk and Johnasson, Kuper, etc. 2. Removed editorialisation re: MSF.They are beyond any doubt a humanitarian group. One may question their politics and their methodology, but that does not make them any less humanitarian.

The UN's historical relationship with genocide is problematic, yes, but their definition is the one that applies for the ICC and any other type of international justice. The US believes that Darfur fits the UNs definition of genocide; other people disagree. Just like every act of killing a person is not murder in the first degree (it could be murder two, manslaughter, etc)not eevry act of mass murder is, LEGALLY, genocide. One could agree or disagree with the UN's call to not invoke the Charter at this point, but that does not invalidate the Charter's definition.Jacobin 10:46, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

• The reason the UN and African Union refuse to call it genocide is that people would be confronted with the fact that Arabs are committing genocide. It amazes me that Eurabia, which insists that the car-B-ques in Paris are the work of "youths" (not Arab youths), has even decided to call it genocide. Perhaps the blood of 6 million Jews weighs on their souls. Teresita 10:59, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Do you have any sources to document your claims? Read Alex de Waal's book on the subject, as well as maybe the article in the most recent issue of the Atlantic Monthly to get a sense of the role of racial identity in the Darfur situation. Are you aware that the victims -the Darfurians - are Muslims? The binary of African and Arab, besides being a part of the legacy of colonialism, is a simplistic way of understanding a conflict with deep political, economic and yes, to a certain degree, ethnic roots. But to just say "it's because Arabs are doing the killing" does no justice to what's actually going on. Jacobin 11:15, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

It is the structure of the article that causes the concern: we have two sentence Introductory parargraph followed by this statement,

The United Nations Genocide Convention defined "genocide"

This is clearly problematic. It creates the unfounded and baseless assertion for an unenlightened student that the Untied Nations is some sort of supra-national authority. It is pure propagandizing. There is no problem discussing the UN's role in its various paper resolutions over the years somewhere within the article, but not preseting it as authoritve of definitive. I would suggest either immediately expanding the article with some substance, or temporarily removing these references to the United Nations until such a time the undue weight is no longer a problem. RobS 13:50, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

History

I am a little puzzled on why this site wishes to start in the 20th century, rather than reveal atrocities of the earlier periods, e.g. 19th century, Medieval and Ancient periods.

By all means add older examples then. CPWebmaster 11:44, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

My definition as to what communism is all about is the Berlin Wall. Karajou 22:26, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

== EDIT == This article has a VERY..ah, ignorant point of view on Communism. "Communism killed 60 million in the 20th century, according to Le Monde and more than 100 million people according to the Black Book of Communism." Communism itself has nothing to do with this. In theory, communism is strongly considered the BEST form of government. However, because humans are naturally greedy, someone WILL sieze power, and corrupt that which is pure. Hitler, Stalin, Castro, and many other dictators and their cohorts brought about the death of millions of people. To assume Communism as a political means of governments killed these people is absurd and an injustice. Magtheridon 22:10, 30 July 2007 (EDT) == END EDIT ==

Put new section edits at the bottom please... A system may be great in theory, but if practical application with the human condition causes a warped volatile mixture, then we must report what occurs from it, not its theory. From its conception until it was put into practice starry eyed intellectuals could talk of the great things to come, but we have seen the reality, and it isn't nearly as pleasant. Learn together 23:46, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

User:Magtheridon has been blocked and I was going to revert his comments. We don't need this kind of trolling. He's a Stalinist holocaust denier, appologist for mass murder, and accuses us of injustice. We don't need to listen to a warped, sick, mind like this. RobS 00:12, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

• Good work with this Rob. I second your thoughts. We do not need anyone trolling like this, and if they really are that ignorant, they have nothing of value to offer this project. --şŷŝôρ -- ₮К^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 04:13, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

the worst genocides

i don´t think we should compare genocides here. for the armenian people, the genocide commited by the young turks was the most horrible, for the jews it was the holocaust. we should explain what a genocide is and we should give some examples. thank you Toolsyoucantrust 06:01, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

When they talk about the worst, they are talking numerically. It's not that some deaths have a different weight than others, it's just that some people killed many more. Stalin is considered to be the biggest mass murderer in history, eliminating about 20 million people. Learn together 11:59, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

if you´re talking about the number of victims, i don´t even know, if you´re right. as far as i remember, there were more chinese killed or starving under Mao Zedong than under stalin.
but if you compare for example the quota/percentage of the killed people, probably rwanda was worse, the holocaust sure was and the armenian genocide also was worse. if one and a half million of a two-million-people are killed, this is probably worse. if almost every jew in germany is killed (about 6 million out of ???) , this is probably worse than killing 20 million chinese out of 500 million. i don´t like top-ten-lists too much, but if you want compare, you should write: chinese genocides: xx million victims, stalin/russian genocides: xxmillion victims. Toolsyoucantrust 15:32, 31 July 2007 (EDT)